Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Wed, 02 December 2015 14:44 UTC

From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, Paul Millar <paul.millar@desy.de>
Thread-Topic: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port
Thread-Index: AQHRJ2oEwWXKgIH4fEO/erzB73PSWZ6300UAgABPPwD//6xXcA==
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 14:43:56 +0000
Message-ID: <e9092589f3204a449af8b6f900be1303@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <565589E4.2030107@desy.de> <565EBF56.3070502@desy.de> <D836A378-DA88-4AAF-B1E4-F34A80319DC1@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D836A378-DA88-4AAF-B1E4-F34A80319DC1@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/7429jJA0BNB1Sm7Hk3AGiBX7aCk>
Cc: "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port
Precedence: list

Speaking as co-chair, I think Yoav's summary is more accurate.  The consensus in the room at Yokohama was that there is not real support for other than 443, but that we need to discuss this on the list "one last time." I think closing discussion is a bit premature, but at this point there seems rough consensus to not require other than 443.

[Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Paul Millar
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port moparisthebest
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Eric Rescorla
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port moparisthebest
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Roland Zink
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Martin Thomson
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Paul Millar
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Randy Bush
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Yoav Nir
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Yoav Nir
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Rob Stradling
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Stephen Farrell
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Rob Stradling
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Paul Millar
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Yoav Nir
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Salz, Rich
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Richard Barnes
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Niklas Keller
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Ted Hardie
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Salz, Rich
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Romain Fliedel
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Ted Hardie
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Romain Fliedel
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port James Cloos
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Richard Barnes
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port James Cloos
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Eric Rescorla
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Niklas Keller
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Randy Bush
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Eric Mill
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Darren J Moffat
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Rob Stradling
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Ángel González
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Vincent Lynch